<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2009 (3) TMI 1004 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=178777</link>
    <description>Employees who opted for a special voluntary retirement scheme and had completed 20 years of service were held entitled to the five years&#039; notional service weightage under Regulation 29(5) of the Pension Regulations, 1995 for pension computation. The scheme&#039;s pension component was read with the existing regulations, and the later amendment to Regulation 28, aimed at a different class of retirees, could not deny the specific benefit attached to voluntary retirement under Regulation 29. The employees were therefore entitled to recomputation of pension, but interest on unpaid pension was declined because the banks&#039; position was not wholly frivolous and High Court views had differed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Oct 2023 12:50:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=416293" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (3) TMI 1004 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=178777</link>
      <description>Employees who opted for a special voluntary retirement scheme and had completed 20 years of service were held entitled to the five years&#039; notional service weightage under Regulation 29(5) of the Pension Regulations, 1995 for pension computation. The scheme&#039;s pension component was read with the existing regulations, and the later amendment to Regulation 28, aimed at a different class of retirees, could not deny the specific benefit attached to voluntary retirement under Regulation 29. The employees were therefore entitled to recomputation of pension, but interest on unpaid pension was declined because the banks&#039; position was not wholly frivolous and High Court views had differed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=178777</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>